Criminal; Rights to
Confrontation and to Present a Defense; Whether Appellate Court Properly Upheld
Trial Court's Ruling Precluding Defendant from Cross-Examining Victim on the
Issue of Whether she had Previously Lied to Police. In connection with a minor
victim's complaint, the defendant was charged with various crimes, including
sexual assault in the fourth degree. At trial, defense counsel attempted to
question the victim about an unrelated incident in which she allegedly lied to
the police about being threatened by a classmate and altered e-mail evidence. The
state objected to this line of questioning, and the court excused the jury and
heard arguments from both parties. It then found that the evidence failed to
establish that the victim had lied to the police, and, therefore, it did not
allow defense counsel to make such inquiry. It stated that defense counsel could
pursue other lines of questioning concerning the victim's credibility. When
resuming its cross-examination of the victim, defense counsel asked her if she
was involved in an incident with a classmate involving the exchange of e-mail
messages. The state objected on the ground that the question was beyond the
scope of direct examination, and after defense counsel made an offer of proof,
the court ruled that any line of questioning regarding the e-mail incident was
collateral and would not be allowed. Thereafter, the court convicted the defendant
of sexual assault in the fourth degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the
fourth degree and risk of injury to a minor. On appeal, the defendant argued that
the trial court, in precluding him from questioning the victim about the e-mail
incident, improperly excluded impeachment evidence in violation of the
Connecticut Code of Evidence and his rights to confrontation and to present a
defense. The Appellate Court (130 Conn. App. 571) disagreed. It concluded that
its review of the proffered evidence revealed that the victim provided
inconsistent testimony regarding whether she had altered e-mail evidence and
lied to the police and that because the proffered evidence was unclear, the
trial court reasonably could have concluded that the evidence would have
injected collateral issues into the trial. In this appeal, the Supreme Court
will review the Appellate Court's ruling.